Related%20passage for Bava Metzia 1:6

מָצָא שְׁטָרֵי חוֹב, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַחֲרָיוּת נְכָסִים, לֹא יַחֲזִיר, שֶׁבֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן, אֵין בָּהֶן אַחֲרָיוּת נְכָסִים, יַחֲזִיר, שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ לֹא יַחֲזִיר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֵּית דִּין נִפְרָעִין מֵהֶן:

If one found bills of indebtedness, if they contain a lien on land [in insurance of payment of the debt], he does not return them (to the creditor), for beth-din exact payment from them (sold properties). [We fear "payment and plotting," i.e., it may be that it is a paid bill which fell from the lender and that his admitting: "I did not pay" is part of a plot between him and the creditor to extract payment from the sold properties which were bought from the debtor without security (against seizure), those properties to be divided between them.] If they do not contain a lien on land, he returns it (to the creditor), for (in that instance) beth-din do not exact payment from them. These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: In both instances he does not return it, for beth-din exact payment from them. [They exact payment even where the bill does not contain a lien on land, for this (omission of the lien) is an error of the scribe, and we fear "payment and plotting." The halachah is in accordance with the sages, And it is only in a bill where a lien is not mentioned that the sages consider it an error of the scribe and collection is made from the bound property as if the lien were written therein. But if he stated explicitly in the bill that he does not take such a lien upon himself, the sages concede that he returns it (to the creditor), for in such an instance there is no apprehension of plotting.]

Explore related%20passage for Bava Metzia 1:6. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.